Dennis Zine on the GM Search Process


The below supposedly (from ADL) are quotes from Zine made some months ago on the search process. He has it 100% on the money.

"The search for this particular  general manager is of critical importance to the city of Los Angeles. I am the chair of the city's personnel committee and dealing with personnel issues, also a member of the executive "employee relations" committee where we establish contracts for all the city employees and I can say candidly that the previous general managers have been a disaster, not only for the city of Los Angeles but for the tax payers, because we've had lawsuits, we've paid out money, and we've had very poor leadership in this particular department."  
 
"If it was the police department or the fire department, we'd  probably have anarchy in the city of Los Angeles if we had that type of poor leadership. I know you're not going to make the selection. 
 
Zine continues: "The concern is not to recycle and what we see happening, often times, is that you'll recycle a general manager from another city. We need to break out of the box, the tradition box of recycling from other part of the country, where someone allegedly did a great job and then you start doing some research. I come from a law enforcement background where you do research to make sure what the credentials are."
 
"So, the ability to oversee a large department with multiple responsibilities, strategic planning is a major issue and a major concern. Shelter operations and maintenance, we have additional shelters that have been established because of the bond measure by the tax payers and we've had disasters at some of those shelters with the construction because there wasn't proper oversight. The veterinary care and employee relations. I can remember the previous general manager, and I'm not going to give names, but I had employees, including supervisors from the department, come to me screaming that there was absolutely no leadership.  Now when your supervisors start coming complaining about lack of leadership, you have a very serious problem. So employee relations is a critical concern."
 
"The ability to create a comprehensive policy manual, the department does not have a policy manual. The previous general manager did away with the policy manual  How do you have a policy that changes day to day? You've got to have established rules, regulations, procedures so the employees know what's expected of them and how to deliver that service. I understand currently they don't have a policy manual which, in this day and age, I don't know any department that exists without that."
 
"We needs stats of the manager's real work history and resume, is there a pattern, reasons for departure from their previous jobs as managers of other city or county shelters? If you get someone from another city, do a thorough background, you can go google dot com and get all kinds of information about an individual. Relationship with established national organizations, humane society, aspca, peta, relationship with local adoption and rescue groups, experience in oversight and monitoring, experience in complaint investigations. We need somebody who's a proven general manager, whether they have five dogs or ten cats, the issue is to lead that department, serve the people of Los Angeles, serve the animals of Los Angeles, and the tax dollars that go into running that department. Make sure it's appropriately done."
 
"We are city of the angels that should be able to treat our animals in a respectable fashion, a humane fashion and a general manager that can deliver that. Less than that is not acceptable to me, the people of Los Angeles.  Thank you very much."

Only One Justice Votes Against Animal Cruelty Videos.


Update April 20, 2010: In an 8-1 opinion with only Justice Samuel J. Alito dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal law prohibiting the creation, sale or possession of animal crush videos and other depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain. 18 U.S.C. §48.

The films, photos and other depictions that are banned under this law show a living animal that is "intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed".  The law does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value. The law only applies to depictions of illegal conduct.

In throwing out the law, the justices overturned the conviction of Robert Stevens who sold dog fighting videos. (Read more about his conviction in Animal Law Coalition's earlier report below.)  
In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court rejected the idea that depictions of animal cruelty should be regarded as unprotected speech, much like obscenity, child pornography or words that incite violence or are integral to criminal activities.

The Majority Sides with the NRA
Instead, the Court found the law is unconstitutionally overbroad, an infringement of the First Amendment.  The Court worried, for example, that depiction of the "humane slaughter" of a stolen cow or hunting magazines with photos of animals killed during hunts would now be illegal.
Citing the  National Rifle Association, the Court noted "hunting magazines alone account for $135 million in annual retail sales".  Citing the Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the Court said "many popular [hunting] videos ‘have primarily entertainment value' and are designed to ‘entertai[n] the viewer, marke[t] hunting equipment, or increas[e] the hunting community.'"  Again citing the National Rifle Association, the Court added "much of the content of hunting media . . . is merely recreational in nature." Certainly not to the animals being trapped, chased and shot or skinned.
The Court also pointed out that animal cruelty is for the most part based on state laws.  State laws regarding animal cruelty, hunting, treatment of livestock and wildlife vary such that it would be very difficult to know what depictions would be illegal from state to state. The Court noted there is no good way to tell what has "serious" value as news, for example, and which depictions are simply animal cruelty depicted for commercial gain. A bull fight in Spain covered by an internet blogger v. a dog fight depicted in a video sold over the internet.

Justice Alito's dissent
Justice Alito disagreed, however. Justice Alito said, " The Court strikes down in its entirety a valuable statute, 18 U. S. C. §48, that was enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty-in particular, the creation and commercial exploitation of ‘crush videos,' a form of depraved entertainment that has no social value. The Court's approach, which has the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos and is thus likely to spur a resumption of their production, is unwarranted."
kittensJustice Alito rejected that the First Amendment protects violent, criminal conduct.

Justice Alito pointed out the statute does not apply to depictions of hunting either because it is legal in all 50 states or it falls within the exemption. The same is true of "humane slaughter". Regardless,said, Justice Alito, the law is not "substantially overbroad".   

Justice Alito offered a reminder of the purpose of this law, describing a crush video submitted to the Court as evidence: "[A] kitten, secured to the ground, watches and shrieks in pain as a woman thrusts her high-heeled shoe into its body, slams her heel into the kitten's eye socket and mouth loudly fracturing its skull, and stomps repeatedly on the animal's head. The kitten hemorrhages blood, screams blindly in pain, and is ultimately left dead in a moist pile of blood-soaked hair and bone."

The justice stated, "It is undisputed that the conduct depicted in crush videos may constitutionally be 

Winograd Interview

I like this interview. Those who don't like Winograd won't. But look how he has impacted the interviewer. He is the messenger for no kill and look how well he does it.

Insiders Predict Budget Cuts Will Kill Record Numbers of Animals Over the Next Year

An unnamed City employee told me that no matter who the new GM turns out to be, budget cuts are going to kill the dpartment's performance, at least over the next 16 months.


The new numbers are out:


http://laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/CatNDogIntakeNOutcomes.pdf


This is the highest kill year for dogs and cats in the past 5 years. Adoptions are down. New Hope rescues are down, and even impounds are down by almost 700. However, the decrease in impounds did not translate into any improvement in the live save rate.


New Hope rescues for cats are down about 25%, or about 500 cats, reflecting the lack of funds in the non profits.


Since this has been the worst kill year in the past five, and kill numbers are expected to increase due to staff and budget cuts, we may be heading to the highest kill year in a decade.


Most people associated with the department don't believe No Kill is possible in LA. There are too many obstacles, and most point to the employees as the number 1 obstacle.


Even Winograd has suggested the only solution may be a private takeover of the department which could lead to large scale changes in personnel.

For Those Who Claim Winograd is Just In It for the Money


We are giving away the store for the sake of the animals!

The No Kill Advocacy Center is offering free copies of Irreconcilable Differences: The Battle for the Heart & Soul of America's Animal Shelters to any elected official.
We need to change the way shelters operate and our director is willing to pay for it! He has generously donated "as many copies as it takes” of his award-winning book to get City Council Members, Members of the Board of Supervisors, Mayors, Assemblymen, Senators, County Commissioners, or any elected official to read it. All they have to do is ask for it.
If we receive a letter on official stationary from them asking for a copy, we'll send it free, no strings attached.
For more information and limitations, go to www.nokilladvocacycenter.org and click on "What's New."


6114 La Salle Ave. #837 Oakland CA 94611
Please note: This e-mail was sent from a notification-only address that cannot accept incoming e-mail. Please do not reply to this message.

The ADL Post

I have received information I find credible that the ADL allegation regarding the hiring process is almost entirely false, and most of those who ADL said applied, in fact have not.


Without supportive evidence one way or the other, I am not going to post anything further regarding this issue. 

Circus at Shrine Auditorium caught selling illegal animals


Circus at Shrine Auditorium caught selling illegal animals
by Animal Advocates
Monday Apr 12th, 2010 5:18 PM
Animal Advocates, Last Chance for Animals, In Defense of Animals and many other animal groups attended a protest at Circus Gatti at the Shrine Auditorium April 11, 2010. Protestors witnessed small children leaving the circus with one inch long red slider turtles. It is illegal to sell turtles under six inches in diameter because children may put them near their mouth. Turtles carry salmonella which can be deadly to children.



After seeing the children with the turtles Mary Cummins President of Animal Advocates decided to buy a ticket and see who was selling the turtles. Three women had a booth in the food court selling small fish and turtles. It is also a violation of the health code to have animals next to food vendors.

Their booth was set up as a game of chance. For $5 you get a bowl of ping pong balls which you try to toss into small fish bowls. If you get a ball in a bowl, you get an animal but there's a catch. You must pay $10 for the Kritter Keeper to carry it and $5 for about two tablespoons of food for a grand total of $20. They also offered to just sell the animals for $25. They provided no care sheets or information. Water turtles need a dry place in their tank to sun under a heat lamp. Most likely all of the animals sold died.

After Cummins bought a turtle for evidence she returned and photographed the animals, people and booth setup. The women then started hiding the animals under the table. Cummins called the Los Angeles Animal Cruelty Task Force to report the illegal activity. An LAPD police officer on the scene called animal control to report the activity. Animal control was sent to the circus.

During the peaceful protest a Shrine employee instructed security guards to take the protestors flyers away from members of the public before they entered. The employee ripped them in half and threw them in the trash. This was caught on video, see link below.

Another time during the event protestors were handing out flyers to mentally and physically challenged individuals. A Shriner then told protestors "you're wasting your time with those people. They're all retards." Protestors and others took offense at the Shriner's use of the word "retard" for challenged individuals.

Later at the event a protestor started to use a megaphone. An LAPD officer told him to put the megaphone down which he did. Officer Moreno badge # 18763 then grabbed the protestor aggressively, pulled his hands behind his back and handcuffed him. See video below. Officer Moreno then put him inside his police car for questioning and to run his identification. He ultimately released him without citing him when he realized that is is legal to use amplified sound during certain hours.

The protestors were protesting the use of animals in circuses. Animals used in circuses are treated inhumanely. Baby elephants are taken from their mothers and put in chains. They are taught to perform tricks for human amusement. Trainers use bull hooks and hot sticks on the animals. They are generally in chains when they are not performing. They live short and inhumane lives.

Protestors chose to protest at the Shrine circus because last week a trainer was killed by an elephant at another Shriner circus in Pennsylvania. These circuses have been cited for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. PETA issued a statement saying the accident "should come as no surprise" given circuses' track records with animal abuse.

Video of events are here
http://www.YouTube.com/ActivismForAnimals

Photos
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=212527&id=733516211&l=935b53d92d

Other News on the GM Selection Process

Do you notice the remarkable difference between the selection process for LA's Animal Services GM as compared to the selection and vetting process for the Supreme Court?


Already a dozen names suggested as on Obama's "short list" have been mentioned, commented on, pilloried, glorified, and discussed. Soon we'll know every decision ever made by the final chosen candidate.


But the GM candidates? Not so much. The "transparency" is about the same as all other department GM selections--not so much.


Why can't the City provide the same level of transparency as a Secretary of State or a Supreme Court Justice?


After the Mayor selects his GM, there will be a pro forma vetting and confirmation by Council, with maybe one or two councilmembers voicing some objections if the candidate is guaranteed to be bland.


As Jerry Greenwalt said, there was only one criteria absolutely required of the new Animal Services GM: Don't embarrass the Mayor, which means Antonio and the selection process as a whole, will be directed towards selecting safety and predictability, not performance.


Everyone I talk to at Animal Services says the department is better run than when Boks was GM, and most, three years ago said the department under Boks was better run than before Boks came. 


The department may be better run, more efficient, whatever, but the numbers do not reflect a reality of a better run LAAS. Isn't this how we measure the success or failure of the department and any new GM--has the killing gone down significantly? The Mayor defines success differently. Has the GM caused him any problems?


Also, notice, no one talks about goals for the department anymore. The strategic plan does not define No-Kill, nor does it affix benchmarks or milestones to attaining it.


Several well known candidates have already received their rejection slips, including Laura Beth Heisen, and Dr. Conrad, the vet who pushed through anti-declaw legislation is several municipalities. No reason was given for the rejection naturally. She feels it was due to lack of shelter experience.


Should any of the other candidates also want to contact me about their experience, I welcome it.


Also, I understand that Kathy Davis who vowed she was not interested in the job, changed her mind and has applied for it, but submitted her application after the deadline. I also here this allegation is untrue.

Mayoral Staffer Responds to ADL Charges Re GM Search

Below is the response to the ADL charges that the GM selection is totally controlled by Mayoral staffers who have no interest in a progressive No-Kill General Manager:

First, Personnel is preparing (and may have already completed) a response to the first PRA request from last week and I'm told it will include the kind of info the City would normally feel it can release about a search when such a request comes in.  I provided no guidance on that, as I am not an expert on the topic.

Every one of the so-called "no kill experts" ADL listed in their e-mails was called and either spoken to or engaged via an e-mail dialogue (like NW), both to be asked if they would consider applying and for suggestions as to who else to recruit and what to look for.  Most of them were spoken or communicated with at least twice. 

And the only entity who's interviewed candidates so far is the search firm.  But the search firm, while it plays a role in providing info from the first round of interviews, is not deciding who should be interviewed in the next round.  Neither am I. 

I don't know all the questions that were asked of candidates in the first round, but I do know they were asked to define "no kill" and assess how feasible they thought it was in a fully public shelter system, and also how best to work with the politicians and the public on the sticky issues that come up with Animal Services.  We all heard loudly and clearly the topics raised by the people who testified at the Commission hearing and wrote to us, and we took no issue with making sure the key ones were factored into the search and the interviews.  By the way, with regard to the public hearing, no one said anything there that hadn't already been brought up in writing or in other contexts.

As I told the Animal Services Commission in early March (out loud in public), more than 120 people applied, 22 were interviewed and six to eight will go forward to the next round.  There doesn't have to be an inside source in the Mayor's office (and I know there isn't one) when the information ADL is misquoting and mischaracterizing was provided by yours truly in a public forum and can be heard on a recording posted on the City website for the last month. 

The only list of questions we have is the master list of about 180 submitted by dozens of people in response to the Mayor's request a few weeks ago.  The process of winnowing it down is not complete yet.

I would challenge ADL to publicly document any evidence they have that the City "promised" some kind of transparent process that would lead to the names of candidates being released publicly during the process.  And I know they can't because there isn't any.  All they can document is their own demand.  You more politely urged and asked for more transparency, but I know you have no evidence of any such promise either.  This search is being carried out in a manner very comparable to other City GM searches, and I know I've told you that before.  The main difference is that we've included members of the stakeholder public in at least one more of the steps than is usually the case.

Additionally, I am not a Deputy Mayor, I have no staff (and probably no cronies either), and I take more advice from the Personnel Department staff than I give them.  And, on any important decision regarding this process, I seek and receive guidance from people higher up in the Mayor's office who provide such direction for all of the GM searches.

The only other thing I will say is that not all of the candidates likely to be interviewed in the next round have direct animal control experience.

Ed Boks 2010 No Kill Plan

Ed Boks has posted an excellent analysis and plan for reducing killing in LA by providing targeted services in the areas most likely to produce animals that are killed in the shelter.


This is not a typical Winograd no-kill plan, but one that focuses on addressing problems in the worst areas.


I like it. This is the kind of information that I had requested from Boks from day one, stating we needed to know where the problems areas are and the resources, both City and private, that can be used to address those problems. Why Ed waited for a year past his exit to draft what is essentially, a highly reduced kill plan, I don't know. Had he done this analysis and aranged for the programs four years ago, he might still be GM today and total killing might be below 10-12,000.


But he didn't.

Poor Dog Has been on the Death List since Day Three


My Other Blogs and Me

I have not been active on this blog lately.


A lot has been happening in my life and I have been thinking a lot. 


My 92 year old mother has been hospitalized with a serious illness twice in 5 months, and my 88 year old mother in law fell and fractured her hip requiring surgery a day ago. Someone called a City agency claiming I was feeding sick and dead feral cats in my back yard. When I heard about the complaint, I requested an immediate inspection by Animal Services and no feral or excess cats were found.


I have another blog, a spiritual blog. My background is as a Zen monk and then I spent years with many spiritual teachers, including two very well known Advaita Vedanta teachers, Robert Adams and jean Dunn. The blog is: http://itisnotreal.blogspot.com. I also have a spiritual website at: http://itisnotreal.com which is huge with lots of free stuff for seekers. 


I recently wrote a book on enlightenment and meditation (downloadable for free at: http://itisnotreal.com/Autobiography%20of%20a%20Jnani.pdf.


This blog is doing amazingly well, with 250-300 visitors a day recently, and almost 10,000 visitors in February. The blog and my website are being translated into Italian: http://itisnotreal.net, and the book is now being printed in India and is being translated into Hindi, Italian and French by various students of mine in India and Europe. It is really a quite powerful book recording the discoveries of one of my students as set forth in our correspondence.


I feel there is a negative change in the US. Something is deeply wrong and I don't know what to do about it. Animals seem to be abused and killed as much now as ever before and I don't think this LA animal blog has helped solve that problem much. I hear the U.S. may actually be sponsoring whaling again. Obama has been a disappointment, appearing to be a Democrat in name only, and apparently made a deal backing the whaling renewal. Not to mention the broken promise of adopting a shelter dog.


So I am thinking about what to do now. What is the best approach to take, whether to devote more time to the spiritual sites and writing about meditation and self-realization, hoping thereby to indirectly help the animals, or to make this blog have a different focus.


Much rests locally on who will become the new GM of Animal Services. If we get the right person, there COULD BE major changes for the better. If we get another Ed Boks, there will just be more of the same ad infinitum. Right now I can have no impact on that process and I await the results as do all of you. 


If we get a good person, hopefully I can be an advocate for positive change, and vice versa if we get another clunker.


If you want to leave a comment as to what you think, please do.





It is very interesting watching the Republicans and the various right wing nut groups react to a black president and a uniting Democratic party finally getting their act together.  So far, the majority of Democratic Congressmen have received death threats or other similar phone calls. Ten Democratic Congressmen have had their offices vandalized. 


The leader of the Senate Minority, Kantor, is blaming the Democrats for trying to make political hay out of being attacked. The Republicans have been using the Teabaggers as pawns, unleashing hate and attack ads, and now that the violence is happening, they don't know what to do.


These teabagging neanderthals are absolute cowards, hitting their targets in the middle of the night, or wearing guns and carrying automatic rifles to rallies in an attempt to intimidate liberals and Democratic lawmakers.


I'd like them to know that the North, the "civilized" states along both oceans have dealt with their ilk before, whether it be the successionist South, the KKK or the neo Nazi groups. Their carrying weapons openly and terrorizing people at night is only going to elicit a similar reaction from liberal groups or the feds. Maybe then the feds will have real work to do rather than consider ALF and ELF America's most dangerous terrorist threats.

Santa Monica Restaurant Serves Whale Meat; Owner Could Get a year in Jail


Santa Monica Restaurant Charged In Whale Sting

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) ― 
Federal prosecutors have filed charges against a sushi chef and a Santa Monica restaurant where marine mammal activists say they were served illegal whale meat. 

Typhoon Restaurant, Inc., which owns The Hump restaurant, and Kiyoshiro Yamamoto, a 45-year-old Culver City resident, were charged Wednesday with illegally selling an endangered species product, a misdemeanor. 

Two undercover diners requested whale as part of an $600 "omakase," or chef's choice, meal. The young women were working with the producers of the Oscar-winning documentary, "The Cove," to record the whole meal. 

They pocketed a sample and genetic testing confirmed that it was meat from the endangered Sei whale. 

If convicted Yamamoto could face a year in prison and a fine of $100,000. The company could be fined $200,000.



ADDITIONAL N.Y.T. ARTICLE:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/us/09sushi.html

Reno Effectively No Kill

They have a 60% Return to Owner rate for dogs, and 7% for cats. This is double to triple the national average.


Reno is divided into two organizations, The Washoe County Regional Animal Services and the Nevada Humane Society, a 503c3 organization. Their 209 numbers are:


NHS Save Rate for 2009: Dogs – 93% Cats – 95%
WCRAS Save Rate for 2009: Dogs – 91% Cats – 89%
Countywide Save Rate (NHS and WCRAS combined) for 2009: Dogs -  90% Cats – 89%.


FROM WINOGRAD'S BLOG (HTTP://NATHANWINOGRAD.COM)



Reno Leads the Pack

February 25, 2010 by Nathan J. Winograd 
As a tourism-based economy, Reno, Nevada, in Washoe County, has been very hard hit by the economic downturn. Loss of jobs and loss of homes are at all-time highs. In fact, the state of Nevada has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Reno and surrounding communities also have other challenges. A recent national survey called it the second “drunkest” city in the United States based on a number of factors including DUI arrests. Nevada has per pupil education funding levels that rival the lowest in the U.S., right down there with historically impoverished states like Mississippi. And its animal shelters have a per capita intake rate five times higher than San Francisco, over three times higher than Los Angeles, and over twice the national average.If there was any place where No Kill would not work based on traditional dogma, that place would be Washoe County, Nevada. And, of course, past leadership of the two largest shelters in the county—Washoe County Regional Animal Services (WCRAS) and the Nevada Humane Society(NHS)—exploited those problems to suggest that they had no choice but to kill homeless animals, even during times of relative economic prosperity. And that is exactly what they did, by the thousands.
But those “leaders” are gone, removed under ethical and performance based issues. Ironically, the former head of NHS was a leading voice attacking San Francisco’s pioneering No Kill work in the 1990s, a darling of the regressive Humane Society of the United States and a member of their exclusive national sheltering committee. Since new leadership has taken over at both agencies and while facing the same challenges, the excuses are gone. And the results have been dramatic. Since 2007, adoptions have more than doubled. Reclaim of lost strays are up, hitting 60% for dogs. And despite taking in over 15,000 dogs and cats per year, lifesaving has reached 90% of all impounded animals, near the top in the nation.
How does a community go from killing to No Kill level save rates? “We changed basically everything,” said Bonney Brown, the Executive Director of NHS and the winner of two awards from the national No Kill Advocacy Center. She was Animal Shelter Director of the Year in 2007 and a recipient of the Henry Bergh Leadership Award in 2009.
Most shelters blame the community for not caring.  But not Brown. “I’ve not read the studies,” said Brown. “But regardless of what they say, every community has its challenges and of course we are no exception. Reno bills itself as the ‘Biggest Little City’ and there is a lot to be said for that. We may be small compared to cities like New York and Los Angeles, but our community has a big heart. And our results prove it.”
Another person who agrees is Mitch Schneider, who runs WCRAS. Given the high intake of animals compared to other communities (which some would suggest is evidence of high rates of “public irresponsibility”) one would expect WCRAS to have a very low reclaim rate for stray animals. But it doesn’t. In fact, Schneider has been dubbed the “King of Redemptions” for returning six out of ten stray dogs to their homes and 7% of the cats. By contrast, the national average hovers around 25% for dogs and only 1-2% for cats. He credits the success to the proactive efforts of his agency, rather than blaming the community. At WCRAS, staff is “encourage[ed] to ‘think outside the box’ to find ways to safely return animals to their owners.”
Brown echoes the sentiment. “People care very deeply about their animals here in Reno. Every time we ask for the community’s help, they respond overwhelmingly,” said Brown. And she has the results to prove it. When the road in front of her shelter was closed for repairs, making it impossible for people to see and get to the shelter over the weekend, she did not resign herself to losing all those adopters. She enlisted the help of the construction company, who agreed to put a half-page ad in the local newspaper to promote adoptions, and Brown and staff set up tents and cages in an empty lot in full view of the street and had a weekend adoption event, complete with people dressed as animals holding signs on the other side of the street. This event resulted in over 200 adoptions—over two times a typical weekend!
When Schneider’s officers seized dozens of dogs or cats in cruelty raids, he enlisted Brown’s help in placing them. The result: “The Great Orange Cat Rescue” and other promotions that find the animals new homes. “We turn challenges into opportunities,” says Brown. Last year, the NHS found homes for 9,184 animals—up front 4,539 the year before she started. That’s an increase of 102%.
And when a tent city for homeless people popped up in the community, NHS was there offering to help. “We already have a program with the Reno Area Alliance for the Homeless to provide free spay/neuters and transport to our clinic for pets of the homeless,” said Brown. “We also have a pet food assistance program to help people who are having temporary issues providing food for their pets. We decided to go one step further.” NHS medical crews went in to provide free vaccinations and care.
The end result of all these programs is not only one of the highest save rates in the nation, but also great public perception of the agency. Before the changes, No Kill Solutions did a series of Town Hall-type meetings and surveys to determine how the Washoe County (Reno), NV community felt about its shelter, the Nevada Humane Society. Those efforts revealed deep dissatisfaction in the community, especially among animal welfare stakeholders (rescue groups, feral cat caretakers, No Kill shelters, and others) with the job being done. The vast majority did not believe the humane society was doing enough to save lives.
Not surprisingly, public perception today stands in sharp contrast to what it was. With the help of the Reno Gazette Journal, a community survey in January 2009 revealed that:
  • 93% support the No Kill initiative;
  • 95% gave the humane society positive ratings on adoption efforts and results; and,
  • 93% say NHS has a good or great public image.
And recognition has gone beyond Washoe County’s borders. Because of these efforts, the leadership of both WCRAS and NHS have been asked to speak at national conferences. Both Brown and Schneider will be speaking at the No Kill Conference in Washington DC this summer. And both are leading a workshop at a conference on Transforming Local Government, put on by the Alliance for Innovation.
That success can be every community’s success. And the only thing standing in the way of it is the commitment and follow-through of its leadership. If there is one piece of advice Bonney Brown has for other communities, it is to follow proven methods, rather than relying on outdated and ineffective conventional wisdom: “The programs that create lifesaving success are no mystery. They are outlined in the No Kill Advocacy Center’s No Kill Equation model, and are being implemented in a growing number of communities.”
To learn more about Washoe County’s success, read “How We Did It,” by clicking here.
To learn more about the No Kill Equation, click here.
To learn more about the No Kill Conference, click here.
By the Numbers (Source: NHS & WCRAS)
NHS Save Rate for 2009: Dogs – 93% Cats – 95%
WCRAS Save Rate for 2009: Dogs – 91% Cats – 89%
Countywide Save Rate (NHS and WCRAS combined) for 2009: Dogs -  90% Cats – 89%.
Save Rate
Washoe County: 90%
Western Region of U.S.: 61%
National: 50%